IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 10 October 2021 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D953A0597; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AQ1Sr68Pi_sb; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F02223A053E; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED421808E; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:30:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id KCGYU7qv56VZ; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:30:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB8A18022; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:30:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379608B7; Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:30:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl.all@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyeM4Dfy4yQBKitNcfaS7E=2-x8Ly2hLnbmBHcFvg7rrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CO1PR11MB48817BF59C64D77794A43F36D8B09@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsxLxfNdPE+s11DqiwDuXg7auwVc953kgC_EZ28bugEWrA@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB488152F0F99251ED4B9DB3BFD8B29@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsyeM4Dfy4yQBKitNcfaS7E=2-x8Ly2hLnbmBHcFvg7rrw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:30:21 -0400
Message-ID: <29221.1633883421@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/9fpMwI94dlUtVhDJJ8bHaKpahvc>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Which MOP for RPL AODV? (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 16:30:30 -0000

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > If we’re moving forward with using MOP 4, then this is what we would need
    > (at least):

    > - IANA Considerations: request to add aodv-rpl as a reference in the
    > registry.

    > - A new section that talks about how the reuse is ok, and any consequences
    > of overlapping.  A requirement to not use both variations in the same
    > network would be fine too.

Is there an upgrade consideration if we re-use?
We could also allocate a new MOP, and deprecate MOP 4, and reuse it later on.

My belief is that there are few deployments of P2P RPL today, and that a
forklift upgrade of them is acceptable.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status